Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees Roundtable Report MaryBeth Morand, PDES

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 3 The Context ...... 5 The Roundtable Format in Practice ...... 7 Findings ...... 9 Socially – The Denial ...... 9 Economically – The Justification ...... 10 Legally – The Deficits ...... 11 Politically – The Institutional Struggle ...... 12 Culturally – The Participation and Language Barriers ...... 13 Recommendations ...... 15 Conclusion ...... 17

Annexes ...... 17 Annex 1: Agenda ...... 19 Annex 2: Concept Note ...... 21

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 1

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 2

Roundtable on Coexistence in Atteridgeville, and Snakepark Townships Hosted by MRM & UNHCR March 25, 2015 Centurion, Province, South Africa

Introduction

As part of a global project on urban refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Moral Regeneration Movement (MRM) hosted a roundtable on coexistence in Gauteng Province in South Africa. Globally, UNHCR recognizes that well over half of the world’s refugees and asylum seekers live in urban and peri-urban areas and that their ability to peacefully coexist in these cities is fundamental to the assurance that their physical security and human rights are protected by the hosting government. UNHCR understands that refugees and asylum seekers cannot make a living or contribute to the social, economic and cultural life of a city if they fear for their personal safety in doing so.

The Moral Regeneration Movement, a local NGO, is committed to the spirit of Ubuntu, which underlies South Africa’s democracy and is embedded in its constitution. Ubuntu can be defined as a quality that includes the essential human virtues of compassion and humanity1, or as kindness. The MRM has been promoting coexistence and improved social cohesion since its inception in 2002. The MRM authored a “Charter of Positive Values” that constitutes a framework of ethical and moral reference for all South Africans and those who dwell in the nation. In its code of conduct, the charter calls for people to “Show respect and concern for all people” and “Strive for justice, fairness and peaceful co-existence.” MRM has worked closely and effectively with the Presidency and Provincial Governments of South Africa as well as many governmental branches including the South African Police Service (SAPS).

On the basis of these positive connections and their established mandate, the Moral Regeneration Movement has recently been approached to facilitate national dialogues, “CODESAs,”2 including one on social cohesion. This particular topic is aligned with “Outcome 14: Nation building and social cohesion,” as part of the Government of South Africa’s strategic plan, the “Medium Term Strategic Framework” (MTSF) for the 2014-2019 electoral term. The MTSF is the first five-year implementation phase of the National Development Plan (NDP)3 and it is structured around 14 “Priority Outcomes” on education, health, safety and security, economic growth and employment, skills development, infrastructure, rural development, human settlements, local government, environment, international relations, public sector, social protection, nation-building and social cohesion. MRM’s potential role in facilitating the CODESA on social cohesion makes it a key player in any forum on coexistence. Thus, both UNHCR and MRM are deeply committed to furthering coexistence.

1 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ubuntu 2 A negotiating forum called CODESA was set up in 1991 after an agreement, the National Peace Accord, signed by the government and 18 other political organizations. 3 The National Development Plan is a plan for the country to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by 2030 through uniting South Africans, unleashing the energies of its citizens, growing an inclusive economy, building capabilities, enhancing the capability of the state and leaders working together to solve complex problems. Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 3

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 4

The Context

Even more deeply staked in promoting peace are the residents of townships where coexistence has been fragile or fractured by the xenophobic incidents that have occurred over the past three months. For the purposes of this discussion, we define xenophobia as follows: if there is tension in the community and all shops are attacked, it is criminality; if there is tension and only the foreign owned shops are attacked, it is xenophobia. This definition was offered by one of the roundtable participants during the plenary discussion and is a succinct and pertinent description of how xenophobia was referred to during the event. Thus, “foreign nationals”4 working and owning businesses in some of the townships are affected by xenophobia as it has only been their shops that have been looted. In a recent incident, a looter was killed by a shopkeeper during the looting. This death has aggravated the already existing resentment that many of the local “spaza” shops, small unofficial stores in a township often based in a private house,5 are owned by foreign nationals. Yet for many of these foreign nationals who have had their education interrupted by forced displacement or who come from highly mercantile societies, running spaza shops is the most viable means of securing a livelihood despite the jealousy it may engender in the communities.

Foreign nationals and South Africans alike are fearful that the recent spate of xenophobic incidents will spark more. The current situation harkens back to the 2008 xenophobic incidents throughout the country that left 62 people dead and many more injured. The aftermath of the 2008 attacks is also troublesome for South Africa since the conviction rate for the perpetrators was notably low and has caused many to doubt the effectiveness of the country’s justice system. Thus, when foreign nationals discuss xenophobia, they often speak of impunity and have little faith in the rule of law being upheld at the local and even the national level.

For the most part, South Africans understandably do not like being classified as a xenophobic nation. Being xenophobic bestows upon South Africans a reputation as hosts that they prefer to deny or are uncomfortable with because it is a reminder of their recent history of . Some say the propensity toward institutionalized racism or “othering” and the subsequent violence toward “the other” are behaviors learned from the apartheid era, a shameful phase in the country’s history. Many would prefer that the legacy of apartheid and associated practices would vanish.

Also, in fighting for liberation from apartheid, freedom fighters were hosted by and received assistance from other African countries. Now to turn their back on other Africans from these same countries who hosted them in the past is to disparage their contribution to South Africa’s liberation and the Pan-African movement. Moreover, allegations that South Africans are not coexisting in relative peace with migrants and refugees are not at all consistent with the South African Ubuntu identity.

While xenophobic attacks are not compatible with the national spirit of Ubuntu, many are quick to point out that there are currently extenuating circumstances that are provoking these acts of violence: severe poverty, high unemployment, especially amongst youth, and the

4 “Foreign nationals” is the preferred, politically correct term for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers as sanctioned by the Government of South Africa. 5 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/spaza Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 5 inconsistent application of the rule of law in the townships. It is noteworthy that similar reasons were attributed as the cause of the attacks in 2008. Both South Africans and foreign nationals often ask, “What has changed since 2008?” It is against this background that the roundtable participants considered how to enhance coexistence in three neighborhoods in Gauteng Province: Snakepark, Mamelodi and Atteridgeville.

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 6

The Roundtable Format in Practice

In order to explore what can be done to promote coexistence in Gauteng Province, UNHCR and MRM joined forces to assemble speakers from the Government of South Africa, well- known community figures, and refugee group representatives to give presentations on the various dimensions of coexistence. UNHCR and MRM also invited representatives from community groups, faith based organizations, trade associations, and NGOs who work in the townships of Atteridgeville, Snakepark and Mamelodi to participate in the discussions. A meeting was held the day before the event in order to explain the roundtable format to the presenters and discuss the agenda.

Both the pre-meeting and the roundtable were held in a hotel away from the three townships and this had advantages and disadvantages. The hotel provided a neutral space where participants could physically and psychologically distance themselves from the places where violence had occurred and tensions prevailed. On the other hand, the location lent itself to elevating the discussion too far away from the reality of daily life in the townships. A number of times during the meeting, participants stated “We should be having this discussion in the townships.”

The roundtable event was facilitated by Mr. Seth Mazibuko from the Moral Regeneration Movement along with Mr. Arvind Gupta from UNHCR. Advocate Lawrence Mushwana, the Chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission provided the keynote address for the event. He was followed on the agenda by two young men: one a rehabilitated addict who used to loot spazas to feed his drug habit and another who is a shopkeeper whose own spaza has been looted three times. Their stories were chosen to help illustrate the realities of coexistence and remind participants that it has a real impact on the quality of life and access to livelihoods for actual human beings.

After the scene was set by the keynote and the two guest speakers, a panel discussion was held. Again, the panel was designed to portray and balance the perspectives of the two communities living in parallel: the host community and the foreign national community. Each panelist had five to ten minutes to share his perspective on why coexistence had degraded to the current level. They provided forthright and deeply personal points of view. Their presentations were followed by an equally candid and, at times, impassioned 90 minute discussion in the plenary.

After the lunch break, key government officials spoke in response to the plenary discussion. They provided the perspectives of the South African Police Service, the Department of Justice and the Department of Home Affairs. The speakers also took questions from the plenary. At this point, almost everyone in the room had an opportunity to express his or her views on the root causes and current state of coexistence and xenophobia in the three townships and the discussion needed to turn toward solutions.

Participants were divided into groups to formulate recommendations to deepen coexistence for the following stakeholders: The Government, including the South African Police Service; civil society (INGOs, NGOs, CBOs & FBOs) and the community; foreign nationals; the United Nations; businesses; and, the media. The groups presented their recommendations back to the plenary for comments and reactions. The roundtable was closed by remarks from Mr. Seth Mazibuko.

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 7

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 8

Findings

Of the 163 people invited, over 75 people attended the roundtable meeting. Representation from the host community and foreign national communities appeared to be balanced well enough to provide equal time for opinions and inputs from foreign nationals and South Africans alike. Both communities spoke of the underlying issues that contribute to the failing coexistence dynamic: increased migration into South Africa; entrenched poverty; high youth unemployment combined with the prevalence of drugs in the township, especially nyaope6; insufficient police patrols; and the inconsistency of the application of by-laws for businesses in the townships. The discussions indicated agreement that these were contributing factors to the breakdown of coexistence and at times triggers for xenophobic incidents.

Following on these broad themes, the analysis of the roundtable participants’ remarks have been examined through the lenses of social systems, economics, legal systems, government structures, culture and linguistics.

1. Socially – The Denial

South Africa is often lauded for its progressive constitution and laws on social issues such as recognizing marriage between same sex partners. Chapter Two of The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996), is a bill of rights which enumerates the civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights of the people of South Africa. Most of these rights apply to anyone in the country, with the exception of the right to vote and the right to enter the country, which apply only to citizens. In upholding its Constitution, the Government is at times criticized by its citizens South Africans for moving too fast and “not bringing the people along with it,” as one participant stated, when implementing the social policies guaranteed by the Constitution. There is a chasm between the policies made and policy makers at the federal level and the implementation of these policies at the township level. The “top down” approach to social reform is perceived as an important fault underlying the lack of understanding and implementation of these policies. One South African participant stated, “Social change should not be flowing from the top.”

Another factor that influences coexistence in the townships is that tolerance toward newcomers seems to be more favorable for some newcomers than others. A few participants concurred that, in general, South Africans are more hospitable toward Europeans and Americans than other Africans. A participant declared, “We say ‘Live in Africa as one Africa’, yet we will take in an American but not a Somali.” While the South African participants admitted to not being as hospitable to other Africans as they could be, and should consider the support these nations gave during South Africa’s struggle for liberation, they also confessed to feeling overwhelmed by the poverty they face and feeling hard pressed to share economic opportunities with foreign nationals. As one participant stated in the panelist pre-meeting, “You don’t know how people on the ground feel; they feel invaded.”

It is perhaps their own discomfort with their lack of characteristic South African hospitality and Ubuntu spirit that leads to the widespread denial of xenophobia as a social phenomenon in the country despite all the press branding. One South African participant maintained that

6 Nyaope is a cheap mixture of low grade heroin, marijuana, cleaning detergents, rat poison and chlorine that sells for about $2 a hit. Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 9 the absence of ethnic cleansing and prevalence of inter-tribal marriage bears testament to the country’s lack of appetite for xenophobia. Others deny xenophobia by stating that crimes against South Africans go underreported and those against foreign nationals are over reported. Nevertheless, as both the former looter of shops and looted shopkeeper noted, no one from the host community ever told the looters to stop nor did they intervene in any significant way.

Along with the denials, a few of the participants also admitted that xenophobia was prevalent in the three townships. One participant went on to note that xenophobia was a way for South Africans to deny their own failures, “We need to go back to basics. We need to look at what did we do wrong before we blame others for our problems. The problem is with all of us. When we pass the buck, it is with all of us, ‘part and parcel of us’.” However, many foreign nationals are not seen by themselves or the community as “part and parcel” of the social fabric of the township. They are accused of staying apart from the community and not participating in the township’s social and cultural events, “Somali participation must improve, they are always absent.” What is seen as separatism of foreign nationals rubs many South Africans the wrong way. For example, after the lunch break on the day of the roundtable, when the Somali participants did not rejoin the plenary once it had resumed, a South African participant pointed out that the group was still out on the patio talking amongst themselves and that this was indicative of their ethos of participation. When invited by the facilitator to rejoin the group, they did so immediately. Perhaps both sides could go further to build bridges between the communities.

The nearby City of Johannesburg was held up as an example of a place where coexistence is far better than in the townships because efforts were taken to build bridges between host and migrant communities. A host community panelist stated that Johannesburg is the only city in Africa to have a municipal policy on integration. In 2007, the City of Johannesburg created a Migrant Help Desk to assist both internal and “cross border” migrants. (He admitted that there are far more internal migrants than foreign nationals and coexistence is easier for the former group.) A Johannesburg Migration Panel, approved by the City Council and populated by the Mayor, other city officials and members of civil society has been in place for a while. The panel has sponsored a series of workshops to build bridges. As he stated, “What can help is having migrants understand the traditions of the hosts.” He went on to say that this training and local committees are the reasons why there has never been a xenophobic incident in Bram Fischerville and Orange Farm, areas of Johannesburg that are heavily populated by migrants. Thus, through its proactive approach to coexistence and inclusion, the City of Johannesburg has fared better than the townships that deny the existence of xenophobia. This example may serve the Government of South Africa well as it conceives its strategy to implement “Outcome 14: Nation building and social cohesion” as part of the National Action Plan.

2. Economically – The Justification

As quick as many participants were to deny xenophobia’s effect on coexistence, they were in equal numbers ready to attribute violence against foreign nationals in the townships to severe, widespread poverty. One participant noted that 30-40 per cent of South Africans are on social assistance. Another participant illustrated this point through his remark, “The townships look like holidays because there are no jobs for people to go to.” Unemployment is South Africa is at 24 per cent with a large part of the nation’s youth unemployed. At the Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 10 same time, some participants admitted that there are jobs in the economy that South Africans will not take, “We hire Zimbabweans as maids; South Africans won’t do it. South Africans know their rights; they aren’t going to take it.”

Yet when it comes to trade, specifically in spaza shops, some participants alluded to the joblessness rate as an explanation, or even justification, for the attacks on shops owned by foreign nationals. Lack of compliance with licenses and other by-laws and cartel trade practices, e.g. price fixing, were alleged to provide the foreign nationals, specifically Somalis, with an unfair advantage, or as one participant said, “their trade secrets.”

The Somalis present at the roundtable responded that they do not have trade secrets and they are contributing to the South African economy. They buy their goods from South African wholesalers and they just want to do business in South Africa. As one spaza shop owner stated, “I came here in 2011… it was a struggle to arrange life, especially daily bread. I did what Somalis do; I became a shopkeeper. I ran a business on a shoestring.” Some of the Somali participants were quick to point out that when they arrived in the townships and opened their businesses there was no government-sponsored counseling or training on retail requirements or practices.

In light of the current unemployment and social welfare statistics, joblessness and poverty will continue to exist. As a participant stated, “Poverty is a reality but it is not a justification (for xenophobic attacks).” Yet, when some South Africans feel that economic opportunities and government favoritism bestowed upon foreign nationals is the cause of poverty, as was voiced more than once in the roundtable, it is important for the Government of South Africa to promote inclusion and coexistence in its efforts to address poverty. Foreign nationals need to be delinked from poverty and unemployment in the minds of South Africans and the cost of xenophobia to the economy and reputation of South Africa need to be pronounced as onerous and unaffordable by all levels of the Government of South Africa.

3. Legally – The Deficits

Albeit different legislative frameworks regulate refugees than migrants in South Africa, as keynote speaker, Advocate Lawrence Mushwana, stated, “everyone is entitled to protection” and even if foreign nationals are not in the country legally they should not be subjected to attacks. The protection that the constitutional democracy of South Africa affords applies to all people in the country, not just South African citizens in almost all respects, e.g. voting. The values and rights based Constitution of South Africa should provide a sound basis for coexistence. Yet, it was promulgated in 1996 and the volume of asylum seekers and immigration into the country was probably not forecast at the time. The current work on “Outcome 14: Nation building and social cohesion” is timely to reinforce the spirit of the Constitution.

Currently, the Department of Justice is also working on a Hate Crime Law. Such a law would enable the criminal justice system to attribute xenophobia as an aggravating circumstance when a crime is perpetrated. The prevailing legal framework does not have classifications for xenophobic crimes and the absence of this classification is thus reflected in the SAPS approach to xenophobic violence. As a representative from SAPS stated, “SAPS does not have a special law for foreigners, we police everyone the same… We do not have a ‘xenophobic attack’ in our systems so we have no numbers for xenophobia. We have

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 11 assault, etc.” The absence of police statistics for xenophobia related crimes perpetuates the myth that attacks on foreign nationals are run of the mill criminality that occurs in townships. The lack of reliable data also prevents the Government of South Africa from creating a baseline to report on the improvements or deterioration of xenophobia. Upcoming efforts to implement Outcome 14 will address data collection along with causes of xenophobia, yet this will take time.

While the rule of law may be the backbone of the legal protection of human rights, the enforcement of the laws is what makes an impact on coexistence. A few of the roundtable participants brought up the desire to see the “street policing” system reintroduced as an expansion of the current Community Policing Forums (CPFs). It is noteworthy that the participant suggestions for an expansion of community based policing are not only for enhancing coexistence but also to find and arrest the sources of drug traffic and to control truant and unemployed youth. The same representative from SAPS noted that where the community is part of the policing, xenophobic attacks decrease.

It is important to keep in mind that law enforcement extends beyond the criminal code. Compliance with business regulations and by-laws must also be universally enforced. The integrity of the licensing system for spaza shops drew particular attention in the roundtable. There were allegations that many of the spaza shops owned by foreign nationals were not compliant with the by-laws and were also in violation of health regulations. To refute these allegations, compliance procedures would need to be seen by all members of the community as dependable and their outcomes would need to be public, e.g. compulsory display of business licenses and passed health inspections, publication in newspapers of businesses that have passed and failed inspections.

The effectiveness of criminal and civil law enforcement is also heavily reliant on the integrity and efficiency of the court system. The quality of the courts and their decisions has an enormous impact on whether or not the rule of law is upheld and thereby perceived as robust and credible. More than a few of the roundtable participants referred to the impunity of the perpetrators of xenophobic attacks and the lingering disappointment in the lack of convictions from the 2008 incidents.

4. Politically – The Institutional Struggle

As the representative from the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) stated, “Rule of law cannot be arbitrarily implemented. It must be consistent.” The speaker went on to explain that the DHA is not a social department per se but that it is responsible for the security of the nation. Yet, as she pointed out that a country “cannot have social cohesion without security”. Although DHA’s primary mandate is national security, it is also the branch of the government responsible for granting refugee status and all the accordant rights, including eligibility for South African social security assistance payments. Participants from both DHA and the foreign national community agreed that systemic weaknesses are exacerbating the current low levels of social cohesion and coexistence.

DHA’s backlog in granting refugee status is well known. A foreign national participant in the roundtable claimed, “…it takes ten years to get a document from DHA, but you can get a business license in three months.” Participants who have applied for refugee status also complained that in addition to the long wait, the quality of the process is poor, with

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 12 inadequate translation services and corruption. From DHA’s perspective, the refugee status system has been widely abused with financial migrants applying as refugees. The representative from DHA stated, “The DHA system has been abused and it is an underlying cause… refugees need to be a part of improving this system and help us (DHA) to see the real refugees with the real needs.” Or, as one South African participant put it, “Refugee leaders are not doing their job. They need to train the newcomers.” DHA has appealed to refugee leaders to help the Department in its assessment work and internal quality controls. The speaker from DHA handed out her business card and extended a sincere invitation to be contacted for such collaboration or to receive complaints of DHA services. She stated this has been her practice when meeting new people for the past three years and she would like to receive more feedback from the community.

As further evidence of DHA’s commitment to coexistence for refugees, the representative from DHA informed the roundtable participants that the Director General of DHA shall assume the leadership of the process of interdepartmental coordination despite the fact that refugees are not central to its mandate. DHA will also be central to the strategy for Outcome 14 and its implementation during 2016 and 2017. Clear, strong governmental leadership is required for improved coexistence. As one foreign national participant stated, “There is no rule of law in South Africa. Only the government can do it.” To consistently and comprehensively implement the rule of law and revised social cohesion policies, a powerful level of leadership is required to garner support and to clarify every department’s role and responsibilities. Positive, powerful leadership would also help to set the tone and encourage all government officials to deliver a unified message on social cohesion, or as one participant phrased it, “…stop the ‘irresponsible words’ from some South African leaders.”

Indeed, intergovernmental work on Outcome 14 in collaboration with civil society provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to create a new social paradigm for South Africa and dispense with the unattractive reputation of xenophobia. As Seth Mazibuko stated, “South Africa’s freedom was won by throwing stones. Since the end of apartheid, the country has been gathering stones for reconstruction. Now is the time to use these stones to build our future.” Collaborative efforts on Outcome 14 will hopefully provide a good blueprint for this building.

5. Culturally – The Participation and Language Barriers

The need for more cultural exchanges came up a number of times during the roundtable. South Africans expressed disappointment when foreign nationals did not participate in their cultural celebrations. They also expressed a desire for more foreign nationals to learn Xhosa and . As one participant stated, “We attack people who we think are not speaking our language. Most people don’t really speak English in South Africa. Somalis and South Africans cannot speak English too well.” Thus, the host and foreign national communities suffer from the lack of a common language as the basis for their dialogue. One participant quoted Nelson Mandela to illustrate how much learning a South African language would improve coexistence for foreign nationals, “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.” Although bridging between cultures is a two-way street, one side has made it clear how they want it to be done.

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 13

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 14

Recommendations

Based on the categories of findings above, the subsequent recommendations reflect statements made during the roundtable plenary discussions. It should also be taken into account that this roundtable stands as one of many recent initiatives. Thus the following recommendations should be compared to those from the reports of other meetings by a newly established task team in South Africa.

1. Socially a. Create more programmes to guide and positively engage unemployed and out-of-school youth. b. Crack down on drugs with a focus on arresting the suppliers. c. Invest in grassroots campaigns for coexistence in the townships and allow them to guide public policy. d. Demand that civil society become better organized and consolidate its efforts. e. Place more emphasis on Pan-African identity in social cohesion programmes. Embrace the unity in these cultures not the differences. f. Use recent heroes to inspire coexistence. g. Engage the media to report on positive examples of coexistence. 2. Economically a. Create an awareness campaign in conjunction with the upcoming CODESA to educate South Africans about the economy and the importance of small businesses such as spaza shops. b. Launch a “Stop Looting Campaign” that details the financial and reputational costs of looting to the nation of South Africa. 3. Legally a. Standardize compliance instructions for business owners and consumers by disseminating easy to read explanations of the by-laws in multiple languages, including Xhosa, Afrikaans and Somali. b. Require licenses and inspection results to be prominently displayed in all businesses. Publish compliance results in local newspapers. c. Reintroduce “Street Committees” policing with clear roles and boundaries for the involvement of civil society and individual citizens. In doing so, reinforce the authority of SAPS and its Community Policing Forum. d. Complete and implement the Hate Crimes Law. e. Train the police and courts on how to implement and record violations of the Hate Crimes Law. 4. Politically a. Encourage leadership at the highest levels of the Government of South Africa to speak out against xenophobia with sincerity. b. Hold public officials who speak counter to coexistence accountable for their remarks. c. Address allegations of corruption.

5. Culturally a. Invite and encourage foreign nationals to participate in neighborhood campaigns and cultural activities.

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 15

b. Hold foreign nationals responsible for their levels of acculturation including language proficiency. c. Continue to hold meetings at the township or neighborhood level that allow for a safe and responsible exchange of opinions.

The recommendations below are those offered by the small groups that were organized in the afternoon’s “Solutions” session. The small groups’ recommendations were directed toward different stakeholders, e.g. governmental bodies, foreign nationals, the media and they appear in this report unedited.

To the Government including the South African Police Service 1. Public Education and Awareness Policy Framework that targets both government officials and society as a whole focusing on immigration issues and human rights; 2. Social Cohesion to be inclusive – National Development Plan, a cultural change more on SA) 3. Human Protection; security, humanitarian assistance 4. Eradicate corruption and abuses of the system 5. Intergovernmental coordination – horizontally and vertically

To Civil Society (INGOs, NGOs, CBOs & FBOs) and the Community (People and the environment) 1. Public Awareness and education programmes to target the grassroots level, e.g. cultural events; 2. Dialogue 3. To be a voice of the people 4. Civic Education 5. Encouraging community participation and joint partner programmes 6. Interrogation of services to improve the life of communities

To Foreign Nationals 1. Government should set up camps to protect refugees, e.g. Zambia 2. Best practices to be learned by other countries 3. Having Business with Equity, e.g. partnerships with locals or host community 4. By-laws should be properly implemented without prejudice 5. Separation of refugees and economic migrants 6. Government departments not speaking to each other, e.g. visitors with visa, refugees, asylum seekers 7. Respecting host communities, e.g. cultural and religion

To UN 1. Support livelihood strategies: UNHCR to support and capacitate government in services such as health and education 2. Monitor South African government for compliance with international law, norms, and standards 3. Gathering and sharing of statistical data on xenophobia and integration challenges. 4. UNHCR to identify community leaders for government to liaise with for integration strategies

To Businesses 1. Equal By-laws 2. Social Cohesion through working together – a tool to eliminate misconceptions about migrants including monopolization of the industry 3. Creation of one forum that talks to ongoing challenges

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 16

4. To do away with wrong sentiments regarding migrants which poses danger & promotes xenophobia

To Media 1. Proactive communications, responsible communications between the community and the media with the community taking responsibility for this 2. Use of media as a tool to educate and promote values 3. Media to be a part of social cohesion/integration deliberations 4. Maximum use of social media – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram

Conclusion

The discussions need to continue and should remain solutions focused. The participants who asked for more dialogue at the neighborhood level are right to do so. In light of current tensions, these meetings need to be carefully managed and facilitated while remaining inclusive. This roundtable event was fortunate in its facilitation, panelists and participants. It is the sincere hope of the organizers that the recommendations of this roundtable will be implemented and will stem the tide of xenophobia. It is also hoped that this event will contribute to the CODESAs on Outcome 14 covering social cohesion and that the CODESAs, in turn, will promote peaceful and positive coexistence. Hopefully, by right of their historic and cultural significance, the CODESAs will have the power and profile to address and remediate the social, economic, legal, political and cultural elements that have imperiled coexistence in South Africa today.

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 17

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service 18

Roundtable - A Community Dialogue on Coexistence Programme 25 March 2015

Facilitator: Mr. Seth Mazibuko, Moral Regeneration Movement Co-Facilitator: Mr. Arvind Gupta, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees TIME TOPIC Presenter/Speaker

08.30 - 09.00 Facilitators’ Greeting Mr. Seth Mazibuko, Moral Regeneration Movement and Mr. Arvind Gupta, UNHCR

09.00 - 09.15 Welcome and opening remarks Ms. Clementine Nkweta Salami, Regional Representative, UNHCR

09.15 - 09.35 Opening Address by the South African Human Rights Adv. Lawrence Commission Mushwana, Chairperson, South African Human Rights Commission

09.35 - 10.15 Personal stories of survival and rehabilitation Mr. Sabelo Dlamini and Mr. Abdirahman Mahamed Iman

10.15 - 10.45 COFFEE & TEA BREAK

10.45 - 11.15 Presentations by the Host Community/South African Mr. Tony Chiloane, City of Panelists Tshwane Mr. Jeffrey Nyawane, City of Johannesburg Councillor Jabulani Thomo, Snakepark Soweto Mr. Immar Bzingwa, Soweto Business Forum

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service

19

11.15 - 11.45 Presentations by the Foreign Nationals Panelists Mr. JM. Ali Ali, Oromo Community South Africa Mr. Amire Sheikh, Somali Community Board Mr. Shuckle Dies, Somali Association South Africa

11.45 - 13.15 Discussion ALL

13.15 – 14.15 LUNCH

14.15 – 14.45 Responses by Selected Respondents Major General Chipu, South African Police Services Ms. Danaline Franzman, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development

14.45– 15.15 “Next Steps” Discussion ALL

15.15 – 15.30 COFFEE & TEA BREAK

15.30- 16:00 Summary and Issues for further deliberation Mr. Seth Mazibuko, Moral Regeneration Movement and Mr. Arvind Gupta, UNHCR

16:00 – 16.10 Closing remarks Ms. Veronica Modey-Ebi, Deputy Regional Representative, UNHCR

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service

20

A Coexistence Roundtable Gauteng Province March 25th, 2015

UNHCR is hosting a series of roundtables in large cities to discuss the best ways for foreign nationals, including refugees and asylum seekers, to fit into the existing infrastructure of the city and contribute to its social, economic and cultural life. UNHCR endeavors to support many levels of national, provincial and municipal structures as well as a wide range of civil society organizations to find effective, positive ways for refugees and asylum seekers to coexist peacefully.

Cities are vibrant, ever-changing entities and assumptions need to be tested frequently on how they work and who are the current stakeholders. Thus, UNHCR is convening a roundtable to discuss the following questions as they pertain to the Gauteng Province:

1) How do you define acceptable coexistence in Gauteng? What indicates that it exists? 2) What can refugees and asylum seekers in Gauteng do to contribute to peaceful coexistence? 3) What can host communities and neighbourhoods in Gauteng do to promote peaceful coexistence? 4) What is the role of the government, especially security and social services, to ensure that supports for coexistence are in place? 5) What roles are there for NGOs, community based organizations, faith based organizations and other members of civil society in the work of coexistence?

To answer these questions, UNHCR will invite speakers from the Government of South Africa, well-known community figures, and refugee group representatives to give presentations on the various dimensions of coexistence in Gauteng Province. UNHCR is also inviting a range of stakeholders to discuss these presentations and inform a multi- organizational strategy for improved coexistence. We welcome participants who have contact with refugee and asylum seeker communities, and, those who interact with and have influence on these communities.

UNHCR recognizes that peace and security is important to everyone in Gauteng and is committed to listening to many stakeholders to find the best way to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers live and work in unity with the generous communities in South Africa who host them.

Building Communities of Practice for Urban Refugees – South Africa Roundtable Report – UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service

21